Marijuana and the Revolution....

[B0LSHEVIK]

Im a mid-twenties proletariat from southern California. I graduated HS, found a good union job that Ive worked for 7 years, Im a shop steward at my workplace too, have attended the CSU and am a mere handul of units away from a BS in chemistry, I volunteer in my community, I keep up politically, I read books by the dozens every year, I play in a band tho on hiatus, and Im a medical marijuana patient.

My point, Ive heard countless number of times how mary-J stumps motivation, leads to apathy, kills brainpower, etc. All of which is usually taken at face value by non-smokers. The workers who drinks is cool, the worker who blazes up however is unprofessional? What the fuck?

Fuck that!

But what about in revolutionary times? I know Cuba has VERY STRICT laws regarding weed, let alone other drugs. Of course alcohol and tobacco are fine, lol. But in all honesty, should there be a successful revolution tomorrow, I want my weed!!!! I'll grow it, care for it, harvest and consume it if need be, but where should we stand on weed?

[Urban Rubble]

but where should we stand on weed?

Don't stand on it, it will kill your plants.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Don't stand on it, it will kill your plants.

Lol.

Just to be safe, I dont want to kill weed, I want it to grow for free everywhere!!!

No but really, Im only asking because Ive even heard 'good' comrades say these sort of things.

It just worries me somewhat.

[Chairman Wow]

it's just a fuckin plant

[Futility Personified]

I think a fairly "left" idea is that the war on drugs isn't working, so legalizing it and taxing it is the best route to negating the crime that often comes with it. Personally, i'd consider a smorgasbord of other drugs worth legalizing, with the exception of heroin and meth. Although weed has links to mental health issues, it has a lot of viable medical uses, and at the end of the day could be considered a substitute for alcohol in that areas for smoking pot could be an alternative for pubs and bars.

[Goatpie]

Here we go again.
When the revolution happens just smoke it.
If your in the position to get away with it now grow it your self. No one has to right to tell you what not to consume, and always remember you should never have the right to push drugs on people.:)

[ChampionDishWasher]

Having drugs of any kind illegal is a violation of human rights.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Here we go again.
When the revolution happens just smoke it.
If your in the position to get away with it now grow it your self. No one has to right to tell you what not to consume, and always remember you should never have the right to push drugs on people.:)

Well of course no one has the right to 'organize' your lifestyle. And of course the US war on drugs is a racist imperialist law meant to both oppress those at home and maintain military and political hegemony in countries south of the border in a continuation of the american Monroe doctrine. But Im not asking about that. To be quite blunt, all government bodies have demonstrated themselves to be quite intrusive. If you've been to Cuba, you would know of some draconian laws the locals worry about. Im not sure what the deal in China is, or N. Korea, and Im DEFINITELY not implying that any of these countries are communist in the first place.

Ive tried to look up cannabis history in past eras with surprisingly little luck. And when you do, its in reference to how the Russian bolsheviks were heron crazed or how 'high' spanish anarchists raped nuns and unterred graves (this one is actually true, lol). So I usually dont find that very credible.

[gorillafuck]

I like weed and oppose the drug war but I don't think marijuana would or should be a main focus (or even something to be considered of the utmost importance) in a class based revolution.


Having drugs of any kind illegal is a violation of human rights.If there's a revolution and workers are revolting and you're spreading around heroin then I'm destroying your heroin.

[Kuppo Shakur]

Im a mid-twenties proletariat from southern California. I graduated HS, found a good union job that Ive worked for 7 years, Im a shop steward at my workplace too, have attended the CSU and am a mere handul of units away from a BS in chemistry, I volunteer in my community, I keep up politically, I read books by the dozens every year, I play in a band tho on hiatus, and Im a medical marijuana patient.
Rub it in, why don't you?:glare:

[Goatpie]

Your stance should be open with it but shouldn't use it as a way to gain followers.
Like as long as your not pushing drugs on people and as long as you don't let it take over your life its grand just like anything else.
And for god's sake dont be some one who believes god sent it to them and its not a drug and all that it drives me crazy :P

[Public Domain]

Marijuana would be legal and possibly widely used after the revolution.

Plus we should focus on bigger things. Making marijuana legal won't be hard, and once it happens we'll stop talking about it. We'll just use it (or not) and do what is important to establish a communist society...

Now, I've run into communists who've taken me out to the barn to ream me out over indulging in 'petty bourgeoisie reactionary escapism' or whatever when I've admitted to toking. I don't understand how drug usage could be stopped when we are getting rid of the people that would stop you. I consider it a choice that one makes for themselves, and people should always have that freedom.

[Cencus]

It's pretty much a non-issue - if you wanna smoke blow smoke it.

As long as folks contribute to society we shouldn't give a toss what they do for recreation as long as it does not harm others.

[ChampionDishWasher]

If there's a revolution and workers are revolting and you're spreading around heroin then I'm destroying your heroin.

That's obviously not what I mean. I'm just saying that if a person decides to use drugs for personal use and is not harming anyone (other than themselves) than no one has the right to tell them not to.

[Dimitri Molotov]

I vote legalize.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Marijuana takes away your motivation to do thinks you don't like.

If you like to work out, if you like to write comedy, if you like to play video games, if you like to cook, if you like to do mechanic work, you will enjoy it much more high.

[gorillafuck]

That's obviously not what I mean. I'm just saying that if a person decides to use drugs for personal use and is not harming anyone (other than themselves) than no one has the right to tell them not to.I don't see how what I said doesn't still apply as a counterargument to what you said. If there's a working class revolution then workers should not let other workers take up or introduce others to drugs like heroin, crystal meth, or some of the extremely negative painkillers that destroy your body, mind, and abilities which are important during a revolution (so basically make it illegal for revolutionary purposes).

[Dimentio]

As long as you don't force me to smoke weed, I think it should be allowed. But people should also be free to propagandise against it.

[ChampionDishWasher]

I don't see how what I said doesn't still apply as a counterargument to what you said. If there's a working class revolution then workers should not let other workers take up or introduce others to drugs like heroin, crystal meth, or some of the extremely negative painkillers that destroy your body, mind, and abilities which are important during a revolution (so basically make it illegal for revolutionary purposes).

It's not a counterargument because I said people should be allowed to, but I did not say I think they should (there is a difference). Plus I think it was pretty clear I meant after a revolution rather than during it (although I don't know how a revolution would turn out if we are repressing each other from the start).

[Highfructosecornsyrup]

I like weed and oppose the drug war but I don't think marijuana would or should be a main focus (or even something to be considered of the utmost importance) in a class based revolution.

If there's a revolution and workers are revolting and you're spreading around heroin then I'm destroying your heroin.

I think marijuana legalization should be a focus and is often neglected by the left. Opposition to the drug war is bound up with anti-imperialism, and a part and parcel of class struggle, not a trivial issue outside of it. The war against marijuana and larger war on drugs is a class war both within the US and outside it.

It is used as a justification for American empire in Latin America, propping up the Colombian government which has huge implications for the terrain of class struggle both in Columbia and across the whole of Latin America. It is used as an internal justification for the policing of poor communities, and people of color, and is a central prop to the prison-industrial complex.

Furthermore access to good weed is a human right. For many people weed is a medicine, providing direct relief to recognized medical problems in a way more desirable than prescription drugs. For others, weed is a far better anti-depressant than prescription drugs. Which raises another issue the way in which legalization is connected to undermining the grip of pharmaceutical companies over our emotional lives.

Finally life can be very hard, and good weed is one of its finest pleasures. It makes it easier to get through a strenuous or repetitive job, and central to the fight for a lot of people against the alienating aspects of modern work and life.

[gorillafuck]

It's not a counterargument because I said people should be allowed to, but I did not say I think they should (there is a difference).Umm, yes and I'm saying they should not be allowed to. So yeah it's still a counter argument because you said they should be able to and I'm saying no they shouldn't. It would be very negative for the working class if people were allowed to spread the usage of heroin during revolution even if in a voluntary manner that's accepted by liberals.


Plus I think it was pretty clear I meant after a revolution rather than during it (although I don't know how a revolution would turn out if we are repressing each other from the start).There has never been a revolution in history that did not involve some sort of repression for it's purposes, a class based revolution wouldn't be different. You think that it's a bad sign if in a revolution, the KKK isn't allowed to march around? After all, preventing that would be repressive.

I hate to use words like "liberal" because it makes me sound like like a Maoist who throws around the word as a substitute for actual debate but you're advocating liberalism.

[ChampionDishWasher]

Umm, yes and I'm saying they should not be allowed to. So yeah it's still a counter argument because you said they should be able to and I'm saying no they shouldn't. It would be very negative for the working class if people were allowed to spread the usage of heroin during revolution even if in a voluntary manner that's accepted by liberals.
Do you remember what your "counterargument" was? You said if I was passing out heroin, you would destroy it. That's not a counterargument, as I said they should be allowed to, not that I would encourage it -but this gets off the point. And yes, although it may slow the revolution if people are using heroin (which they will whether its banned or not) it is important that we refrain from infringing on rights as much as possible, we don't want to just replace the old police state with a new one, do we?
Just like with anything authoritarian, banning drugs may get shit done quicker, but it hinders what should be our main focus: freedom.


There has never been a revolution in history that did not involve some sort of repression for it's purposes, a class based revolution wouldn't be different. You think that it's a bad sign if in a revolution, the KKK isn't allowed to march around? After all, preventing that would be repressive.
I hope you can see the difference between allowing the enemy to march around during a revolution and giving your comrades the power to make their own decisions...

[gorillafuck]

Do you remember what your "counterargument" was?Oh I get it because it's in quotes it's not a counterargument you sly dog you.


You said if I was passing out heroin, you would destroy it. That's not a counterargument, as I said they should be allowed to, not that I would encourage it -but this gets off the point.I said that if someone was giving heroin to revolting workers I'd destroy it (and yes, spreading hard drug use has been a tactic against workers in real life).

And oh, it's not a counterargument? Good, so I assume then that I misunderstood you and you actually would not allow people to spread heroin use. Because if you would allow that, then well I guess you'll have to concede that it is a counterargument.


And yes, although it may slow the revolution if people are using heroin (which they will whether its banned or not) it is important that we refrain from infringing on rights as much as possible, we don't want to just replace the old police state with a new one, do we?What is your idea of class politics? Class struggle isn't just a struggle against a police state or a body that infringes on drug rights, it's a struggle against the bosses and exploiters.


Just like with anything authoritarian, banning drugs may get shit done quicker, but it hinders what should be our main focus: freedom.Working class liberation comes before the right to shoot heroin, as far as class struggle is concerned.


I hope you can see the difference between allowing the enemy to march around during a revolution and giving your comrades the power to make their own decisions...I'm not giving comrades power to make eachother into heroin addicts when things are on the line, no. If someone's already a heroin addict then they should be taken care of but tough love for comrades would be needed for sometimes when the destruction of capitalist society is on the line.

[ChampionDishWasher]

Oh I get it because it's in quotes it's not a counterargument you sly dog you.
You know me so well.:thumbup1:


I said that if someone was giving heroin to revolting workers I'd destroy it (and yes, spreading hard drug use has been a tactic against workers in real life).

And oh, it's not a counterargument? Good, so I assume then that I misunderstood you and you actually would not allow people to spread heroin use. Because if you would allow that, then well I guess you'll have to concede that it is a counterargument.
It's not a counterargument because you didn't counter what I was arguing.
All I've said-in my combined posts- is that if someone was passing out heroin I would discourage it and ask others not to use and tell them why I feel its a bad idea, but I would do nothing to physically prevent them from doing it as, in the end, it is their decision what they want to do to their body, not mine or anyone's.


What is your idea of class politics? Class struggle isn't just a struggle against a police state or a body that infringes on drug rights, it's a struggle against the bosses and exploiters.

Working class liberation comes before the right to shoot heroin, as far as class struggle is concerned.
No, it is not just a struggle against a police state, but that is very much part of it. Personal liberation is just as important as class liberation.


I'm not giving comrades power to make eachother into heroin addicts when things are on the line, no. If someone's already a heroin addict then they should be taken care of but tough love for comrades would be needed for sometimes when the destruction of capitalist society is on the line.
I get what your saying here, but as long as the person is able to function, I just don't see why there is a need to interfere. If they are not, then I agree with you, but there are many that can.

[thesadmafioso]

Any sort of drug detracts from reality and distorts rational thought, of course these sorts of things should ideally be removed from the culture of any revolution. The driving concept behind drug use is inherently anti-materialist and thus it would be abolished by any thorough and complete revolution.

Though I do support the decriminalization of certain drugs such as marijuana in the context of modern capitalist society as an undesirable but necessary course of action to curb its usage and as a means to put an end to the wasteful and ultimately useless war on drugs. I disagree with the usage of drugs like this, but I can't see how strict literal criminal actions against there use have any progressive effect on curbing their proliferation. If they were decriminalized they could also be strictly regulated by existing institutions of the state, giving a greater degree of practical control over drug use to the government as opposed to illegal elements of the free market.

[hatzel]

I said that if someone was giving heroin to revolting workers I'd destroy it


I would do nothing to physically prevent them from doing it

And you seriously don't notice these are conflicting viewpoints? :confused:

[ChampionDishWasher]

And you seriously don't notice these are conflicting viewpoints? :confused:
Did you read everything that was said? I don't think ya did.

[hatzel]

Did you read everything that was said? I don't think ya did.

I did, in fact, read every single word. It made me chortle :) And Zeekloid's right, in both the argument that his argument was a counter-argument, and in the actual content of said argument...

[gorillafuck]

It's not a counterargument because you didn't counter what I was arguing.
All I've said-in my combined posts- is that if someone was passing out heroin I would discourage it and ask others not to use and tell them why I feel its a bad idea, but I would do nothing to physically prevent them from doing it as, in the end, it is their decision what they want to do to their body, not mine or anyone's.Do you actually not understand this? It is a counterargument because I would physically prevent my comrades from spreading or being introduced to the usage of heroin. Not just suggest they don't, I would not allow it. Which has been my counterargument. This is weird that you can't grasp this.


No, it is not just a struggle against a police state, but that is very much part of it. Personal liberation is just as important as class liberation.Liberation from the bondage of capitalism is much more important than "personal liberation" (whatever that means, apparently it has to do with the right to shoot heroin). This is the class struggle perspective.


I get what your saying here, but as long as the person is able to function, I just don't see why there is a need to interfere. If they are not, then I agree with you, but there are many that can.Because heroin poses an extremely serious risk of making people not able to function, and hard drugs can and are used as a weapon against workers.

You said you'd let hard drugs be introduced to fellow workers during revolution (I know you'd advice against it, but you wouldn't stop it). This is something I strongly disagree with and is the source of our disagreement and hence my counterargument.

[ChampionDishWasher]

Do you actually not understand this? It is a counterargument because I would physically prevent my comrades from spreading or being introduced to the usage of heroin. Not just suggest they don't, I would not allow it. Which has been my counterargument. This is weird that you can't grasp this.
Your post was implying that I wanted the workers to use drugs. As I said multiple times, I don't, but it is their right.
Regardless this really is a pointless argument, lets talk about whats below.


Liberation from the bondage of capitalism is much more important than "personal liberation" (whatever that means, apparently it has to do with the right to shoot heroin). This is the class struggle perspective.
I just flat out disagree here. I think both are equally important, and are inseparable for a truly free society. I think Bakunin sums up what I mean pretty well.
"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality"


Because heroin poses an extremely serious risk of making people not able to function, and hard drugs can and are used as a weapon against workers. Yes, there is the risk, but that still does not give another person the right to limit the rights of another unless it happens. Many, many people are able to function perfectly fine and still use.


You said you'd let hard drugs be introduced to fellow workers during revolution (I know you'd advice against it, but you wouldn't stop it). This is something I strongly disagree with and is the source of our disagreement and hence my counterargument.
Fine, this^ is a counterargument, but it is not what was discussed before. (Again, for the sake of productive conversation, I suggest we move on)


Oh, and I wanted to ask if your argument applies to after the revolution as well, once communism has been established.

[ChampionDishWasher]

I did, in fact, read every single word. It made me chortle :) And Zeekloid's right, in both the argument that his argument was a counter-argument, and in the actual content of said argument...
Well I guess were going to have to agree to disagree, thanks for adding to the discussion....

[gorillafuck]

Your post was implying that I wanted the workers to use drugs. As I said multiple times, I don't, but it is their right.
Regardless this really is a pointless argument, lets talk about whats below.I was going to stop responding because I've made my point clear enough to everyone but I'm gonna dispel this because I said nothing remotely close. I said you'd allow comrades in revolt to be introduced to hard and extremely addictive drugs by people who spread use. Which is what you said.

[ChampionDishWasher]

I was going to stop responding because I've made my point clear enough to everyone but I'm gonna dispel this because I said nothing remotely close. I said you'd allow comrades in revolt to be introduced to hard and extremely addictive drugs by people who spread use. Which is what you said.
Ok first I said you implied it, and saying "If you're passing out heroin, I'm destroying it" kinda does imply that.
But sure, lets keep talking about the most petty point of our discussion and ignore everything else.

[Robespierre Richard]

The way I see it, addiction is the problem, not drugs. If someone wants to destroy their body and mind with meth or heroin, there is nothing we can do to stop him or her except offer help. So yeah all drugs should be legal/minimally controlled (I don't think we should sell heroin except with prescription as a painkiller or for addiction).

B0LSHEVIK: You say you are a shop steward. Do you work in an industrial area? Because if yes, you really aren't allowed to smoke weed, and at least where I work would be subject to testing either randomly (if the boss decided to be a dick) or after an accident.

[gorillafuck]

Ok first I said you implied it, and saying "If you're passing out heroin, I'm destroying it" kinda does imply that.No it doesn't. I said "if". Not "when".


But sure, lets keep talking about the most petty point of our discussion and ignore everything else.I made all my points.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I plan to smoke a blunt on the roof of the White House after the revolution. Just try and stop me. :cool:

[Mather]

Any sort of drug detracts from reality and distorts rational thought, of course these sorts of things should ideally be removed from the culture of any revolution.

Bullshit. All controls over how people think, including the criminalisation of drugs, should be abolished. No revolution should seek to force people to "think rationally", that at the end of the day is up to the person and no one else.


The driving concept behind drug use is inherently anti-materialist and thus it would be abolished by any thorough and complete revolution.

Well I know lots of people who do drugs who are materialists and lots of people who don't do drugs who are not materialists, so your point falls flat on it's face again.

You seem to be conflating your own petty moralism with materialism.

[Lucretia]

Wow. The average age of posters here is what? 17? Good luck on fighting and winning a revolution while you're smoking joint after joint.

[Robespierre Richard]

Wow. The average age of posters here is what? 17? Good luck on fighting and winning a revolution while you're smoking joint after joint.

Done it before and I'll definitely do it again man.

[pastradamus]

Im a mid-twenties proletariat from southern California. I graduated HS, found a good union job that Ive worked for 7 years, Im a shop steward at my workplace too, have attended the CSU and am a mere handul of units away from a BS in chemistry, I volunteer in my community, I keep up politically, I read books by the dozens every year, I play in a band tho on hiatus, and Im a medical marijuana patient.

You sound like a hero for me when I was 16! :lol:


My point, Ive heard countless number of times how mary-J stumps motivation, leads to apathy, kills brainpower, etc. All of which is usually taken at face value by non-smokers. The workers who drinks is cool, the worker who blazes up however is unprofessional? What the fuck?

But what about in revolutionary times? I know Cuba has VERY STRICT laws regarding weed, let alone other drugs. Of course alcohol and tobacco are fine, lol. But in all honesty, should there be a successful revolution tomorrow, I want my weed!!!! I'll grow it, care for it, harvest and consume it if need be, but where should we stand on weed?Well comrade, I've smoked a huge amount of weed in the past, I dont anymore because, in my honest opinion, I became extrememly forgetful, slow to think and I used to get headaches (only from hashish mind) - HOWEVER - I wouldn't begruge anyone the luxury of smoking Marijuana - especially on a medicinal basis. Im simply saying that I have had my experiences with drugs and im done with them and, yes I did enjoy smoking joints.

Now on you point about Cuba, well not everybody here agrees with every aspect of the Cuban government, in fact, some would completely dismiss it as being socialist at all. I dont think anyone on this forum would begruge you the right to medicinal marijuana.

Recently, I've given up smoking cigarettes, I was a 20-40 a day guy and for the last two months im off the cigs. After comsuming everything from cocaine to marijuana to speed I can honestly say NOTHING gave me more trouble than cigarettes.

[28350]

The real problem with pot is that it's too fucking expensive to have as often as I'd like.

[thesadmafioso]

Any sort of drug detracts from reality and distorts rational thought, of course these sorts of things should ideally be removed from the culture of any revolution.

Bullshit. All controls over how people think, including the criminalisation of drugs, should be abolished. No revolution should seek to force people to "think rationally", that at the end of the day is up to the person and no one else.



Well I know lots of people who do drugs who are materialists and lots of people who don't do drugs who are not materialists, so your point falls flat on it's face again.

You seem to be conflating your own petty moralism with materialism.

Well I know people who think that you are wrong.

To be serious for just a moment though, at the end of the day it is not up to the person to think if they are to think irrationally and against their own interests. If someone believes fascism to be a great ideology, I don't damn well care. People are fallible whilst logic is absolute, so spare me your little tirade about individual freedom and drug use.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't think many here, although there are a couple Stalinists, would argue for prohibiting drugs post revolution. The drugs war is an attack on the international working class so I believe it is possible to see prohibition in class terms. The uses for hemp are widespread also and I would imagine any planned, worker managed economy would account for this and cultivate it.